The Right To Offend

Off-Topic Off Topic
#21

Well, whether you like it or not, there has been since the prohibition of duelling.

It is so terribly subjective in any case as to what constitutes “offence”; before the above named prohibition the definition was far simpler: if I am willing to risk my life to restore my honour over a remark, than that remark was offensive.

Now, people have become so thin-skinned that anything can subjectively be termed “offensive”. This has then led to the very astute observation by certain groups that they can use this to shut down debate or hide the more unpleasant aspects of their religion/culture, and thereby attain a “protective” status under the law, under which they are immune from criticism.

#22

You have no right to get offended! You have right to offend but not to get offended. Is that how it should be? I do not think so…

About the “Caricature Scandal” (as it can be seen as an example) - you turn the issue up side down.

First, they are not “others, in foreign lands”. They live next to you. Wake up. In Denmark, per instance, the Muslims constitute about 5 % of the population. It is too late now to use this argument.

Second, I have right to fart while eating in the cnateen, but for some strange reason I do not execute it. At least in open. :wink:

Third, I followed the “Cartoon” debate and it is appaling that the muslims are “denied” even to raise the issue. They attemt to speak up that is offensive to them is being judged as unappropriate. Again I am not talking about extremist. And it is very common for the “freedom of speach” preachers to substitute normal moderate muslims with extrimists.

Fourth, most likely there would not be any “Cartoon” conflict at all if the Danish priminister acted responsibly as he should have done as a head of state. Blatantly refusing to react at all on the meeting request from 10 ambasadors is just stupid. In Sweden they also printed cartoons. So what happened? Nothing! Because their PM met the ambassodors and stated that he can not do anything.

#23

Back it up, please.

It is so terribly subjective in any case as to what constitutes “offence”; …
This has then led to the very astute observation by certain groups that they can use this to shut down debate or hide the more unpleasant aspects of their religion/culture, and thereby attain a “protective” status under the law, under which they are immune from criticism.

Sure it is subjective and can and is used by ALL sides to “manage” the course of debate.
It is an issue. But hey, life is complex thing.

Yet, again there is no “right to offend”! There is a right to express your opinion. So either the question has to be refrased or answered negatively.

In the later case (expessing opinion) we come to the situation that has to be assesed subjectevly. And here we have to selfgovern if not due to the law then for the sake of our own consciousness. But making statements for the purpose of offending an oponent (2/3 of reasons for the Cartoon scandal) is just out right stupid.

#24

He he
I did the same , but i use the Notepad for it.
BTW as i remember you started here from a VERY LONG posts.
I even wrote to you that from couple of your post we could published the whole book:)
Remember it?

RS*'s First Law of Forums states: The probability of hitting a combination of keys that loses a post entered on a forum screen rises exponentially with the amount of alcohol consumed.

RS*'s Second Law of Forums states:The probability of losing a post entered on a forum screen rises exponentially with its length.

RS*'s Third Law of Forums states: The probability of recovering it with the back button decreases exponentially with the difficulty in recreating it.

So from First Rule we could conclude that you now drinks alcohol bigger than last year, when yu have started from a long posts:)

#25

Becouse i doubt that ONLY 5 % of population of cnateen dislike it:)
I thing the entire 95% would like to beat your face after your farting.
The problem i think is that
We want to make caricature of Muhhamed as well as we like caricatures of Jesus.In fact we saw a lot of simulars caricatures that have been published in vivid anti-religion aims in some of periodical.
But Muslims don’t agree with it.
So we disagree with muslims.
This is not just question of Ethic and Culture.
I think we have to listen with the ESSENTIAL part of our population.( There in Russia is about 20 mln of Muslims or about 13% of population)
If they don’t likes the caricatures- this is their right.
Our Cristians should only envy for their international unity.

#26

Nah!

You’ve just got used to my long posts. :wink:

#27

Why should any prime minister meet with ambassadors who represent nations about an issue that involved a religion without borders and which regards itself as above nations and which was trying to impose its standards on its host country in pursuit of its belief in its religious supremacy?

Since when did ambassadors have control of Islamic religious zealots?

If it was that simple, the Swedish ambassador in Afghanistan could have met bin Laden and told him to pull his head in and 9/11 wouldn’t have happened.

Or does this admit that there is a relationship between Islamo-fascists and certain states with predominantly Islamic populations?

#28

If we have a right to the Freedom of Speach and the right of the Freedom of the Press, then it only follows that some people are going to be offended at some point or other. We are all different and we all have different sensitivities.

So, by embracing the two (above) we must include within that the right to offend per se. One can wrap it up in whatever language one wishes, but it comes down to the same thing.

#29

Your words not mine.

About the “Caricature Scandal” (as it can be seen as an example) - you turn the issue up side down.

No, I just used it to illustrate my own point of view.

First, they are not “others, in foreign lands”. They live next to you. Wake up. In Denmark, per instance, the Muslims constitute about 5 % of the population. It is too late now to use this argument.

I’m very aware of who is around me. You don’t need to get on like my recruit training instructor - next thing you’ll be wanting to beast me. :frowning:

Second, I have right to fart while eating in the cnateen, but for some strange reason I do not execute it. At least in open. :wink:

You’re just not an anti-social type. You are considerate of those around you, even when your face shows the strain. :wink:

Third, I followed the “Cartoon” debate and it is appaling that the muslims are “denied” even to raise the issue. They attemt to speak up that is offensive to them is being judged as unappropriate. Again I am not talking about extremist. And it is very common for the “freedom of speach” preachers to substitute normal moderate muslims with extrimists.

No problem with them being offended and raising the issue. Just have a problem with them passing death sentences against those of us that don’t share their beliefs - we haven’t signed up for it.

Non-muslims everywhere are confusing ordinary musilims with extremists. One chap, very prominent, but I forget his name. He said fundamentalism is about the basic beliefs of Islam, which is a peaceful religeon. The distinction he made was the militants are hardcore Islamists, and that that is how they should be known - Pays your money and takes your choice.

Fourth, most likely there would not be any “Cartoon” conflict at all if the Danish priminister acted responsibly as he should have done as a head of state. Blatantly refusing to react at all on the meeting request from 10 ambasadors is just stupid. In Sweden they also printed cartoons. So what happened? Nothing! Because their PM met the ambassodors and stated that he can not do anything.

Freedom of the press = no government interference. What could he do if he had met them, other than argue freedom of the press or go for state censorship of the press?

The press in Britain is self-regulating, but I feel they ought to observe some ethical guidelines. Unfortunately, the press is about circulation and ratings, which means advertising revenues which means dosh.

I go!.. I finish! …I go to my village!

#30

One of the great things about those pain in the arse Americans with their magnificent hypocrisy in so many areas (not that they have a monopoly on that) is their ability to uphold freedoms which contradict everything their governments try at times to impose on Americans and the rest of the world.

They’re still a pain in the arse at times but, by God, they’re still a shining example to the rest of the world, for all the many faults they share with all other nations.

Among other things, America has enshrined a right to offend in its constitution, and a right to offend Americans about one of the symbols they hold most dear. You won’t find the same right to offend in most other nations.

“Symbolic expression” is a phrase often used to describe expression that is mixed with elements of conduct. The Supreme Court has made clear in a series of cases that symbolic expression (or expressive conduct) may be protected by the First Amendment. Several of these cases have been highly controversial–perhaps none more so than Texas vs Johnson (1990) reversing the conviction of a man who expressed his strong displeasure with U. S. policy by burning an American flag.

It was a case involving the burning of another symbol, however, in which the Supreme Court announced the test it would use to analyze expressive conduct cases. Paul O’Brien’s burning of his draft card led to his conviction for the “knowing destruction or mutilation” of a draft card. The Supreme Court, over only one dissent, affirmed O’Brien’s conviction, but in so doing offered a test that would later be used to protect other protesters. Specifically, the Court said that a law regulating expressive conduct would be upheld only if it furthered an important governmental objective unrelated to the suppression of speech, was narrowly tailored to achieve the government’s legitimate objective, and the law left open ample alternative means for expression. In O’Brien’s case, the Court found the law to be narrowly tailored to its important objective of “smooth and efficient functioning of the selective service system.” (Many commentators were critical of the Court’s decision, arguing that the law was really an attempt to suppress a dramatic form of anti-war speech.)

Daniel Schact, who performed an anti-war skit at Houston’s draft center while wearing a military uniform, had better luck in 1970 in reversing his conviction for wearing a military uniform in a production other than one that “does not tend to discredit that armed force.” The Court found that the statute used to prosecute Schact made an impermissible content-based distinction and violated the First Amendment.

A few years later, Harold Spence, a young Seattle resident, was prosecuted under a state flag “improper use” law for hanging a flag in his apartment window with a peace symbol attached to it. The Court rejected the state’s argument that promoting respect for the flag or preserving the flag as a symbol of the nation constituted important governmental interests unrelated to the suppression of speech, and reversed Spence’s conviction.

Finally, the Court addressed the highly emotional issue of flag burning. In Texas vs Johnson, it reversed Gregory Johnson’s conviction for burning an American flag during the 1984 Republican National Convention. The Court concluded that the flag burning was “speech” and again determined that the flag desecration statute was aimed at the communicative impact of Johnson’s message. The Court noted, however, that speech-neutral laws, such as those applicable to public burning generally, might be constitutionally applied against flag burners. The next term the Court again confronted the flag burning issue, this time to consider the constitutionality of the Federal Flag Protection Act of 1989, passed by a Congress unhappy with the Court’s decision in Johnson. The Court again ruled for the protester, a man who set fire to a flag on the steps of the U. S. Capitol, finding that the act was an attempt to suppress unpopular speech. The Court’s decisions in the flag burning cases has led to numerous attempts to pass a constitutional amendment authorizing punishment of flag burning and mutilation, but so far the proposed amendment has fallen short of the two-thirds support necessary in the Senate.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/flagburning.htm

#31

Is this a back-handed complement, or an exercise in the right offend ? :wink:

#32

A forward handed compliment, with a reality rebound. :smiley:

America’s problem is that it vigorously espouses the highest principles of liberty but sometimes acts contrary to those principles, so it cops flak for those actions where far worse actions by many other countries are pretty much ignored because we don’t expect, or get, any better from them.

#33

I first mentioned the Catoon scandal, not you. So it is mine. ONLY MINE! DO NOT TRY TO STEAL THIS ARGUMENT.
Spooky, huh?
Any way, with all due respect, I most likely know better about the Cartoon scandal - I live in Denmark.

You’re just not an anti-social type. You are considerate of those around you, even when your face shows the strain. :wink:

Strain? No strain , my friend. I just seiz the moment an gently let it go - flying high!
It is not strain. It is relaxed concentration.

No problem with them being offended and raising the issue.

Again, I know how it went down here. Local danes were absolutely clueless what is the problem with the muslims and Danes did get pissed way before the death threats were spoken. In this rare case I know what I am talking about.

Just have a problem with them passing death sentences against those of us that don’t share their beliefs - we haven’t signed up for it.
Same with me.

Freedom of the press = no government interference.

Please! There are bunch of way a goverment can affect press. The first and absolutely FREE one is to meet offended people and openly make a statement that the goverment cann’t do anything. That is what they did in Sweden with great result.
That is what Danish PM did not do in the beginning of the scandal. You see the “funny” thing is that he had to do at the end any ways! How ironic, is not it? So he managed to piss off normal moderate Muslims, create economic loss for the country and form a subculter around this on both extremists poluses…

What could he do if he had met them, other than argue freedom of the press or go for state censorship of the press?

See above and remember about the Swedish case.

The press in Britain is self-regulating, but I feel they ought to observe some ethical guidelines.

Exactly! Printing cartoons with purpose to irritate a group of people is IMHO - not ethical.

#34

Unless I miss something the quote you posted about those US flag desacration cases actually proves MY point.
I will try to repeat shortly my position.

There is no such a thing as a right to offend. One has a right to express his views. So it is not about what you think but about how you express it. I do not spit into your face even though it supposedly should express very well my disagrement with you. So I choose an appropriate means. One does not print his thesis in astrophisics on the same page with a nude picture. There are appropriate places, times and methods.

Analogy with the flag desacration: It may be not punishable to desacrate the American flag in US (though they almost accepted that law only shot of 1 vote needed) but it is still procecutable in many other countries. One of which is your glorious neighbour which law puts it rather clearly that it is illegal to destroy the New Zealand flag with the intent of dishonoring it.
That is exactly what I mean: “express but do not intend to offend” = “no right to offend”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_desecration

#35

I rather like that.

#36

Amusing! :slight_smile:

Any way, with all due respect, I most likely know better about the Cartoon scandal - I live in Denmark.

I bow to your greater knowledge. As it happens, I didn’t take a lot of notice of the detail. I got the gist of it, and didn’t believe it justified a Fatwha - but, then, what does?

Strain? No strain , my friend. I just seiz the moment an gently let it go - flying high!
It is not strain. It is relaxed concentration.

Yes, I can relate to that. I was at funeral wake a couple of weeks ago. I was chatting with two rather attractive ladies (as one does at wakes), when I gently let go:

‘Can you smell chocolate?’ asks one

‘Yes!’ says the other.

‘I’m’ not smelling anything!’ says I

‘Definately chocolate!’

‘Are you wearing cocoa butter?’ I ask

‘No!’ from both

‘Oh, well!’ says I

‘it’s quite pleasant really!’ says the other ‘I just can’t understand where it’s coming from?’

:smiley: :smiley: :smiley:

Exactly! Printing cartoons with purpose to irritate a group of people is IMHO - not ethical.

I don’t disagree. If the media have no news, they tend to create it.

This is what inspired me to open the other thread regarding minorities rights.

#37

Doing something with intent to ‘dishonour’ a bit of coloured rag isn’t the same thing as setting out to offend someone.

The problem in both cases is that determining what amounts to ‘dishonour’ and being offended are subjective determinations by viewers which occur independently of whether or not the actor intended to achieve that result.

In many cases there are people who are just hell bent on being offended by anything that contradicts their often inadequate grasp of events and history.

On the flag question, you’d be struggling to come up with one better than the common Australian claim that doing anything to our current flag is offensive because it dishonours the men who fought under and for it (like anyone in their right mind fights for a bit of coloured rag) in two world wars. The only problem with that nationalistic stupidity is that legally it wasn’t our national flag until 1954 and we had two flags in common use until then, and I remember waving both of them at Our Sovereign Lady, the Queen in 1954.

#38

I was discussing ‘Flag burning’ with an America cousin of mine
(As a tool of protest, it can be very potent.)

Anyway, he said that when it happens in the States, they jump on the ‘offender(s)’ and beat them up.

#39

But does that reflect disapproval of the action or the cause behind it?

If the late Charlton Heston had burned the American flag in defence of the right to bear arms and all that the NRA stands for, would he have been condemned or applauded by the NRA types?

#40

In the context of the conversation, it was very definately disapproval of the action.